Beauty, Mercy, Justice

Catholics & Evolution

A couple of days ago a discussion on Amy Wellborn’s blog wandered, very off-topic, into the question of evolution. (I’m not bothering to link because it was only a few comments, which I’m about to reproduce here, out of sixty or seventy on a totally unrelated subject). The usual observation was made that Catholics are ok with the basic scheme presented by the theory of evolution because we aren’t committed to any particular view of the physical facts as long as God is not excluded. Well, that’s fine as far as it goes, but it’s never been very satisfying to me, and I replied:

I respectfully submit that, contra [what someone else had said] the question of evolution does matter to the Catholic faith. Quite a lot. If you want to know what I mean, it’s here (the July 11 entry, if that link doesn’t land you on it).

The only response to that, from someone who just signed himself "Rick", was:

The death that enters the world with Adam is not biological death
per se but the loss of "integrity" – the preternatural gift by which
human passions and biological processes are fully subject to the
rational soul.

The biological processes of death and decay didn’t begin with our
first parents; but if they had remained sinless, they, and we, would
have been held aloft from them through the gift of integrity.

To which I replied:

Sorry, Rick. I have tinkered around, so to speak, with that view of death and about the best I can say about it is well, it could
be that way. It certainly doesn’t fit with scripture in a
straightforward way, and it’s not really any more satisfying than just
saying "we don’t know." Which, as I noted in the piece I linked to, I
can live with, but I don’t like it.

If anybody wants to read that piece of mine that I linked to above (it’s an old Sunday Night Journal entry about intelligent design called Great IDea) and has a better counter to the questions I raise, I’d certainly be glad to hear it. I really think the acceptance as fact of the standard evolutionary timeline has far more influence on the climate of our times than is generally recognized. Note: I am not suggesting that we’re free to decide the facts otherwise in defiance of the best scientific conclusions, but I think we are hiding our heads in the sand if we think we can reconcile Christian faith and the standard picture with a little philosophical smoke and mirrors.

“The current scientific consensus, on the other hand, shows us a period of millions of years in which animals destroyed each other in blood and pain.”

To my knowledge, Christian theology has *never* attributed animal death to Original Sin. Animals die, ultimately, because God did not create them in His image and likeness and destine them for immortality. This teaching goes back to Aquinas and beyond and has nothing to do with the geologic record.

Aquinas comments on the immortality of our first parents in the Summa, Question 97, Article #1:

“…man’s body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God.”

This “supernatural force” was never intended for animals, and they didn’t lose it by the Fall. And they don’t necessarily suffer because of it, since true suffering may require a self-awareness that animals, or many animals, lack.

Therefore the fact that millions of animals lived and died before Adam doesn’t really touch the doctrine of Original Sin.

Rick writes : “Therefore the fact that millions of animals lived and died before Adam doesn’t really touch the doctrine of Original Sin.”

Nor does it ‘touch’, either to prove or to disprove evolution from species to species since time per se is accidental to the argument.

Using St. Thomas or more particularly, Trent’s reliance on St. Thomas, we can know with the same certitude as we grant Trent, that evolution which requires a substantial change to occur is not possible.

With that said, Rick is correct, biological death did not enter the world through original sin, what changed on the natural level: was man’s relation of his will to his material appetite. And on the supernatural level: the loss of grace.

As St. Thomas writes, lions have sharp teeth in order to eat meat.; shall we posit that in paradise of all locations, nature does not act for an end?? And are not plants crushed between teeth and killed by their consumption, or are ants not killed by their being trod upon or being eaten by anteaters? Where is the proof that plants were not consumed? And if consumed were not killed by their destruction and substantial change in to the animal they were consumed by?

Secondly, to not posit death is to posit immortality, were all plants and animals created immortal? Where is the proof for this.

Obviously there was both accidental as well as intended biological death prior to the fall. Whether Adam would have suffered biological death is a separate matter.

Maclin Horton writes that he has “tinkered around” so I’m sure he has already thought of objections to my arguments above, but I do wonder, are plants and animals to continue to multiply but to never decrease? Within x number of generations houseflies would cover the earth 10 feet thick which would not be paradise even to those same said flies.

Would flies practice abstinence so as to prevent this rather unsightly buildup? If so, where is proof for this abstinence?

Those who posit “total depravity” as the Calvinists do, likewise posit that we cannot know paradise prior to the fall, but that is not the Catholic position. We can know, because the fall was not a total corruption as the heretics hold. We can look at nature around us and extrapolate. We can look at our own fallen nature and understand what is meant by the ‘will’ which seeks the universal good of the man and his material appetites which seek the particular good. Thus we can understand what St. Paul means where he says there are two laws within him. The one law pertains to the law prior to the fall, the other pertains to law post fall.

The appetites are no longer subordinate to the will. Thus Adam became when he chose sin to be like the animals which also act for the particular good. The flesh ceased to be under the control of the will, but became a law to itself, but those appetites are us, and thus as St. Paul writes, we do what we will not to do. And thus we can understand St. Augustine in the City of God where he writes on the nature of man prior to the fall, because we can understand what is meant be this lack of subordination. And just as we extrapolate to understand our own nature prior to the fall, so likewise can we look back to know the nature of paradise prior to the fall. A paradise, which like scripture itself is both rational and in keeping with the nature that we are capable of knowing. A paradise which was most natural, just as it is natural to the beasts to obey men.

It is natural for tigers to eat men because they have sharp teeth, it is not natural for them to eat men because men are their superior. When a tiger eats a man, it treats man according to a lesser good, i.e. his being made of flesh. So likewise did Adam treat himself when he acted according to his appetite, thus the tiger treats Adam and his descendants according to a lesser good. But a deer is not a greater good to a tiger that the flesh on its bones. For tigers, there is a relation which is different in kind between itself and man, and itself and a deer. Those in error fail to see this distinction in relations, we as Catholics do not fail to see it.

Thanks for the very interesting responses. As a matter of reason, the points about the inherent problems, both logic and practical (great instance about the flies, Franklin), of imagining a pre-lapsarian world more or like like our own, yet without death, are very well taken, persuasive in the abstract, and a useful brake on sentimentality, which, one could argue, is perhaps what my qualms are.

Still: when I think about the concrete reality of death and pain I remain troubled. I suppose we are to imagine an unfallen man who remains unperturbed in the midst of animals suffering these things (I take your point about the word “suffering” as applied to unconscious pain, Rick, but still, the pain is real). I’ll spare everyone the graphic images, but I’m sure we have all seen horror in the natural world, and I have trouble conceiving of perfect equanimity in the face of it as the proper condition of man.

It appears that the problem with biological death and suffering prior to the fall is akin to the problem of evil and the principle of double effect. Biological death or physical suffering by the irrational animals is an evil per se, and yet it existed in a paradise. Perhaps it is best to look at evil first.

Evil does not have a cause per se. Nothing intends evil per se. For all thing act for a perceived good, whether that good be a good in reality or a mistaken good. All things act for what they see as a good for themselves. A man may drink poison thinking it a medicine. Or a man may commit suicide thinking it an alleviation from suffering. But he intends a good.

Even the fallen angels intend a good, although it is once again a false good. They, like the tyrant, intend a good although it is a false good. The tyrant rules not for the good of his subjects, but for his own good, he sees his subjects existing for his good and will rule his subjects to the detriment of his subjects.. Likewise the fallen angels intercede in men’s lives not for the good of men, but for their own perceived good. For both the tyrant and the fallen angels, they act for an end that they see as good, but which is contrary to the true good. Thus in this way is evil caused by a defect in the agent.

And thus is evil a privation or deficiency of that which is proper to an object. For it is proper to angels to act according to justice, but it is contrary to justice to cause undue harm to men. Likewise do tyrants act contrary to the proper nature of the king when they act contrary to justice. But in both fallen angels and tyrants, the intention is not evil per se, but a perceived good for themselves.

And it is in this regard, ( the intending of good ), that we speak of God causing evil. Not because he intends an evil, but because he is causing a higher good. The evil is not intended, what is intended is the higher good. And thus the evil, i.e. biological death is likewise for a higher good.

For instance God demanded the death of men, or torments men in hell, not because he intends the death or torment, but because he intends a greater good. It is the same as the principle of double effect in ectopic pregnancy. The surgery is intended, the death of the infant is not intended. It is known that the infant shall die, but that is not the intent. Abortion intends the death of the child, or it intends a lesser good than the life of the child. Thus abortion is either murder or a corruption of the principle of double effect.

Thus God does not cause evil except accidentally. When it is said that God causes evil, what is looked at is not the final end or intent of God, but an accident of that final end or intent.

And thus God is the author of life, not of death. For he intends life as agent and as a final cause. But he never intends death as agent or as final cause. Death is accidental. And thus biological death in paradise is likewise accidental.

What we dread is the evil because it is contrary to our nature which seeks self preservation. With preservation of our ‘Being’, being first and foremost because it is most intrinsic to us. We seek the preservation of our earthly life because it is a preservation of our natural being. Death is a destruction of our being as a unity of body and soul. Death causes a rending of the soul from the flesh which is unnatural to man.

This is also why men naturally seek God, because it is in God that we find the perfection of our being as our final cause. I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell because it is contrary to my natural desire of self preservation as regards my final end.

Yes, that is useful, but–this is just speculation and wondering aloud–what was the intention of which death was the accident or double effect? Still seems pretty mysterious, and one can’t help wondering, perhaps impiously, if things couldn’t have been arranged otherwise.

I think the relationship of flower, bee, and man is an example of the way things really ought to be, each nourished without harm to the other. It’s easy to feel that nature would hardly be the same without, say, lions and eagles, but do tapeworms really make that great a contribution? In a positive way, that is–they certainly make a great symbol of evil.

I didn’t respond at Amy’s because of your promised post here. Thanks for an interesting discussion. I’ve re-read your earlier comments and my opinion is the same as Rick’s. The Church does not require a literal reading of Genesis, using figurative language (CCC 390) and I can’t find any specific language addressing literal death befor the fall in CCC sections 402-406. I think the strongest argument for literal reading of “death” is in CCC section 400, but a literal reading of that section is not necessary to make sense of the following sections at all, so I conclude that “death” does refer to a spiritual death.

I also think that we all have the practice of thinking that our orthodox Catholic opinions on theological matters are *the* correct way to think about a problem when often they are only *a* correct way to think about a problem. I think that is partly the case here. There are many different ways to read Genesis, each person tending to be individually more figuratively or more literally, and *all* are correct within certain broad bounds.

Since Pope John Paul observed no problems with evolution I think that it presents no problems for the Church, but may present problems for certain members who are entitled to believe what they do. That happens in many differnt areas–Marian devotions, for example.

First, more fully understanding Gn 1-3 is dependent upon understanding the literary genres used. Like many others, I believe that Gn 1 is fundamentally poetic in character, with “God saw that it was good” as the refrain. Having said that (and this brings me to my second point) most English translations, save the pro-evolution NAB, record that God created living things “according to their kind.”

Lastly, on the question of death, please note that as a consequence of Adam & Eve’s sin, something did in fact die, namely the animal whose skin provided the tunics made by God to clothe them.